Denyse O'Leary

One of the most interesting journalists in Toronto is a friend of mine, David Warren, who – as if he did not have enough troubles – has gotten sick of bloviating Darwinists and decided to take them on. At least I am not alone any more. Far from it.

Writing to friends, Warren notes, “I have been remiss. I have allowed several months to do by without taking another kick at the Darwinoids. I endeavour to correct this oversight in my column for Sunday,” whereupon he directs us to his recent column for The Spectator:

I get such apoplectic letters, whenever I write about “evolutionism,” that I really can’t resist writing about it again. This is not, of course, because I have any desire to tease such correspondents. Perish the thought. Rather, when a writer finds he has hit such a nerve, he can also know that he is approaching a great truth.

In this case, we must ask ourselves why so many people get so excited about an area of science that should not concern them. For most of these correspondents know precious little science, and haven’t the stamina to engage in detailed argument. They are simply shocked and appalled that anyone would dream of challenging what they believe to be the consensus of “qualified experts,” whom they assume are a closed camp of hard-bitten materialists, with no time for religious or poetical flights.

The answer to this question is clear enough. People without a stake in a controversy pay little or no attention to it. They will hardly be vexed by assertions of one party or another, when the result of the controversy cannot touch their lives. It is rather when a person does have a stake, that he begins to care.

It follows that my most apoplectic correspondents have a stake in evolutionary controversies. They imagine themselves to have an impersonal interest in defending science against “religious superstition,” and the dangers to society that the latter might present. They in fact have strong and uncompromising religious beliefs of their own, which they are loath to have questioned.

Much of the “star chamber” atmosphere, that has accompanied the public invigilation of microbiologists such as Michael J. Behe, and other very qualified scientists working on questions of design in organisms and natural systems, can only be explained in this way. The establishment wants such research to be stopped, because it challenges the received religious order, of atheist materialism. Any attempt, or suspected attempt, to acknowledge God in scientific proceedings, must be exposed and punished to the limit of the law; or by other ruthless means where the law does not suffice.

Not to be missed.

An author friend asked Warren recently,

I just attended a briefing in Seattle about a film aimed at the US presidential election campaign, defending intelligent design, starring Ben Stein: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It details the cases of Rick Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker. For more go to the Post-Darwinist.

Why Europe has been in decline for so long:

At the Post-Darwinist, I received a message in my inbox regarding my update to the file I keep up on opinion polls relevant to the intelligent design controversy:

Immigrant from Europe, I have been living in the country for a little over 7 years now.
SInce then, I have been flabbergasted by the creationism-intelligent design movement in the States. Before coming here, I have never, ever seen anyone even remotely question evolution, and this in a number of countries were I have stayed and lived. To be fully exact, in none of what we usually call “civilized” countries; not to put some countries down but just that there education level is not at the typical “western world” level.

I am always amazed by hearing comments by citizens of this most advanced country about what has been accepted as basic fact, not even subject to discussion outside the physical walls of churches, in all advanced countries.

This post is not intended to hurt anyone. I would just like to understand why and how a vast number of American came to so firmly believe in creationism (or intelligent design if you want to call it that name). – xxxxxx

I assume that by “this country” my correspondent meant the United States. I replied, a tad frostily, Read More ›

(This is my most recently published ChristianWeek column, focusing on stuff that religious people supposedly used to believe that no one ever believed (except maybe some gullible materialists). ) The ignorance and opposition to science of religious folk has been staple of antireligious tracts for centuries. Often, the tales remind me of bogus miracle stories – so good they can’t be false. Two recent examples are worth noting: Religious folk, we have been told, opposed anesthesia in childbirth because women should suffer the Biblical curse of Eve (Gen 3:16). Medical historian A. D. Farr actually went to the trouble of methodically searching the literature from Britain in the 1840s and 1850s, when modern anesthesia during childbirth was first introduced. He Read More ›

The Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, be it noted, has denounced the recently opened Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky: Dr. Catherine Badgley, a professor at the University of Michigan and president of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, remarked, “according to the Creation Museum, the history of life is short, sin-ridden, and laden with moralizing imperatives. In contrast, the real fossil record shows that this long history is brimming with discoveries of new kinds of animals, plants, and environments, inviting people to use their unusual minds to question, to reason, and to wonder at life’s remarkable variety.” Unusual minds? Interesting choice of words. But what on earth has happened to the Society for Invertebrate Paleontology? Why aren’t they chiming in? Maybe next Read More ›

As the Darwin bicentennial looms (2009) and the flapdoodle flaps, we are treated to ridiculous hagiography and soothing, reassuring spin on how Darwinism can live harmoniously with the non-materialist beliefs of the peoples of Earth.

Meanwhile, a friend draws my attention to Taner Edis. Read More ›

A friend draws my attention to a recent squawk in TRENDS in Biochemical Sciences Vol.32 No.7 (July 2007) by Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross, who – so far as I can tell – make a career out of opposing the intelligent design theorists. Squawks about the alleged threat posed by the ID theorists are nothing new – this one (“Biochemistry by design”) is aimed mainly against Mike Behe – but my friend called my attention to the fact that it mentions me (and my colleague Mustafa Akyol) – and in a most curious context too …

At a blog called “biologists helping bookstores,” a Pasadena-based woman whose handle is Shandon explains how she deliberately misshelved Mike Behe’s Edge of Evolution, and a number of other books – distributing them around the store according to her private tastes. Now, you might think that Shandon (hereafter Misshelver) is restricting the right of others to read. But whoever she is and whatever her connection to biology, she does not see it that way at all. Anyway, see how she describes her modus operandi.

I’ve just read a most interesting book by Oxford historian Alister McGrath, arguing that we are currently looking at the twilight of atheism. That’s certainly my impression, judging from the remarkably ill-advised antics of the recent anti-God campaign. One thing the campaign made quite clear is that materialism is not some neutral middle ground on which we can happily do science experiments together. On the contrary, these people are militant, and that could be trouble for you if you are a theist or non-materialist of some kind. For the rest go here.

In a beautifully written article in the New Yorker, Ian Parker describes how he shared the hot, damp work of studying the elusive bonobo (lesser chimpanzee) – long lauded as sexy and peaceful – with one of the only people in the world who actually knows much about them in the wilds. Well, people who actually studied the “hippie ape”, came away with a different view. UPDATE! Note this update on the most interesting combox discussion that developed overnight.

When I asked a gifted Canadian physicist what he thought of Frank Tipler’s The Physics of Christianity, he said, “in one word: wacky”. But readers will expect more than one word from me, and I think there is more than that to be said for Tipler’s book. Frank Tipler is in an unusual position. He is a Christian physicist who is an exponent of “many worlds” theory. This theory, according to which new universes are constantly generated by each choice that we make, is typically shunned by Christian physicists (including my friend, mentioned above). Apart from its dizzying implications, many worlds theory seems to make life’s choices meaningless. (Tipler does not appear to see it that way.) Now, one good Read More ›

I first determined to make a point of reading historian Richard Weikart’s meticulously researched book, From Darwin to Hitler because Darwinists were very clearly upset by the implications of his work. Some seemed obsessed with proving Weikart, who teaches at California State University (Stanislaus) not only wrong but dishonest and irresponsible – which he certainly isn’t. I am glad I read this magisterial work, because I now understand much better the relationship between 19th century Darwinism and the rise of Hitler. Weikart unearths so many old, almost buried 19th and early 20th century German sources. Indeed, one can only wonder at his patience, systematically reading through the many, many articles and books of long-dead eugenicists, imperialists, pacifists, socialists, and such. Read More ›

The recent North American polls I’ve seen recently show several key trends:

1. Both evolution and creation are widely accepted, and the distribution of numbers is roughly stable over the years. No dramatic proof or disproof of Darwin’s theory that would change many minds has occurred. That said, it is quite likely that many people believe contradictory things.

2. Americans are (or think they are) well aware of the arguments on either side, and generally do not want the issues politicized.

3. Canadian responses differ markedly from American ones in several ways, principally because the issues have not been politicized in Canada. The reasons why they have not are worth noting. Read More ›

I hope I am not interrupting a heated exchange over pepperology* but I thought I’d share this:

A reader of the Post-Darwinist wrote me to ask, how it could  a plant evolve by Darwinian means to look like a wasp – as we are meant to believe.

I replied:

Well, the Darwinian theory is that the wasp and the orchid evolved by slow steps toward this resemblance, purely by natural selection.

That is, the plants and insects that looked most like each other were naturally selected for.

Somewhat like an accidental version of Swan Lake.

I have the same reaction as you. I don’t think it likely happened that way. Read More ›

To: Dembski

From: O’Leary

Re: Compensation for Thumbsmen

July 25, 2007

Bill, pursuant to your recent comments on the guy in charge of promoting the ID biz conf over at the Thumb, how much ARE we paying our shills anyway? I have been trying to get figures for several months now, but accounting is backlogged due to the recent surge in memberships, donations, and book sales.

Taken as a group, the Thumbsmen are highly productive – an excellent investment. I can’t think of any venture of ours that has been as successful in providing worldwide recognition for the ID community and for anti-materialist ideas in general.

However, the productivity of individual Thumbsmen varies wildly. I cannot determine which ones we should tell to go freelance until I know what each is actually costing our public relations budget. Also, some of them are overdue for a pay raise, don’t you think? We wouldn’t want to tempt them to accept an offer to work against us.

The ASA division continues to underperform. Read More ›